The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Saudi Arabia to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 26/2024 concerning Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Faraj, asking the Government of Saudi Arabia to immediately and unconditionally release him and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Faraj (Saudi Arabia): Opinion No. 26/2024.
ARREST OF BUSINESSMAN MR. AL-FARAJ UNDER TERRORIST CHARGES
Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Faraj is a national of Saudi Arabia, born in 1980. He was residing in Al-Awamiyah, where he had been doing business for 15 years at the time of his arrest.
In 2011 and 2012, Mr. Al-Faraj participated in demonstrations to protest against the treatment of the Shia minority in Qatif, and later attended the funerals of individuals allegedly killed by government forces during those demonstrations. In early November 2019, he was asked to collaborate with government authorities, which he refused. Two weeks later, his company's warehouses were raided by these same authorities, and his construction equipment was confiscated.
Around 3 a.m, on 2 December 2019, while he was returning home with his family, he saw tanks in his street, and saw that all of his house's doors had been shot. His house had been raided and searched, and allegedly, explosives had been found there. As such, instead of going home, Mr. Al-Faraj and his family went to one of his company’s warehouses on Dweij street. A few hours later, he was brutally arrested by government forces who had raided the warehouse. He was blindfolded and put in a car.
The squad stopped at the closest “investigation centre”, where he was forced to press his fingerprints on an unknown piece of paper. Mr. Al-Faraj was transferred immediately to the general prison in Dammam where he was handed over to a person introduced as an investigator for the case. After his blinfold was removed, he saw one of his relatives had been arrested as well, and was told to cooperate in exchange of his relative's safety. After several beatings, sexual-assaults and threats, he eventually confessed.
Mr. Al-Faraj was kept in solitary confinement from the date of his arrest on 2 December 2019 until 8 August 2021. On 22 June 2021, he was transferred to another prison, without prior notification. Soon after, he was brought before a prosecutor and a judge, and was informed of the numerous charges held against him, all pursuant to the the counter-terrorism and financing of terrorism act, the Explosives and Firecrackers Act, the Weapons and Ammunition Act, the act on anti-forgery offenses and the anti-cybercrime act.
He was sentenced to death on 3 November 2022 by the Specialized Criminal Court. On 6 December 2022, his lawyer appealed the decision before the Specialized Criminal Court of Appeal, which upheld the sentence on 31 January 2023. At the time of the source's communication,Mr. Al-Faraj’s case had been pending with the Supreme Court since 15 March 2023, and he was then being in Dammam prison.
The Government was given the opportunity to contest these allegations, which it did on 29 February 2024.
ARRESTED WITHOUT AN ARREST WARRANT, HELD INCOMMUNICADO AND NOT PROMPTLY BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE
While according to the source, Mr. Al-Faraj was not presented with an arrest warrant nor explained of the reason for his arrest at the time of his arrest, the Government denied this, explaining a warrant had been issued and that Mr. Al-Faraj had been informed on the day of his arrest of the reasons for it, as well as of his rights. The Working Group recalled that issuing and presenting to the person arrested an arrest warrant are different things. Thus, since the Government has not clarified whether the arrest warrant was actually shown to Mr. Al-Faraj at the time of his arrest, it found that his arrest violated articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This finding was further supported by the Working Group's recent jurisprudence concerning the lack of arrest warrant presented by the authorities of Saudi Arabia.
The source alleged that Mr. Al-Faraj was detained incommunicado from his arrest on 2 December 2019 until 8 August 2021, that is to say for 21 months. During this time, he was held in solitary confinement and thus denied the right to be visited by and to correspond with his family. Though it was denied by the Government, the Working Group found this response too general, and thus concluded that his arrest prevented him from contacting the outside world, in violation of principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and rules 43 (3), 58 and 68 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
Moreover, Mr. Al-Faraj was allegedly denied the right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, the right to be brought promptly before a judge and so the right to access effective remedy. Indeed, while he was arrested on 2 December 2019, he was only brought before a judge in June 2021. Considering the Government’s absence of a specific response and the impossibility to submit complaints directly to judicial authorities, the Working Group found this situation in violation of articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The source argued that the charges on which Mr. Al-Faraj was arrested were based on overly broad provisions, which the Government denied stating that laws in Saudi Arabia were all drafted with sufficient precision. Recalling its jurisprudence and the findings of other UN bodies, the Working Group found the anti-cybercrime law and the 2017 counter-terrorism law to be vague and broadly worded provisions indeed, rendering Mr. Al-Faraj's arrest in violation of the principle of legality in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Hence, the Working Group found that the arrest and detention of Mr. Al-Faraj lacked a legal basis. Thus, his deprivation of liberty qualifies as arbitrary under category I.
DETAINED FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, OF EXPRESSION AND TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
The source explained that Mr. Al-Faraj was arrested under terrorism charges, but that there has been no credible evidence showing he ever took part in any terrorist activity or owned any type of weapons or explosives. Instead, the source argued he was arrested for peacefully participating in protests against the State’s treatment of the Shia minority, as well as for having refused to comply with the Government's orders. The Government denied this in quite general terms.
The Working Group recalled the lack of legality of the charges under which Mr. Al-Faraj was arrested and convicted, as well as its own jurisprudence and the one of other UN bodies concerning arbitrary detention in relation to the exercise of fundamental freedoms in Saudi Arabia. In this light, the Working Group found that Mr. Al-Faraj conduct fell within his rights to exercise his freedom of conscience, expression and peaceful assembly, respectively protected under articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those concerns have been pointed out at several occasions and at the time this opinion was rendered had still not been addressed by the Government.
The Working Group concluded that Mr. Al-Faraj’s detention was arbitrary within the meaning of Category II.
MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
According to the source, Mr. Al-Faraj was denied his right to legal assistance. The Government denied this allegation, stating he had been informed of this right on the day of his arrest, which he acknowledged by signing a document, and that he had access to three lawyers of his choosing and three other paid for by the State, who visited him in detention. The source said that only one lawyer had been appointed to the case, and noted the Government's failure to specify when Mr. Al-Faraj was able to meet or communicate with the said lawyer for the first time.
Given the Government’s general responses, the Working Group found that it failed to respect Mr. Al-Faraj’s rights of a legal assistance at any time, including while he was detained incommunicado. As such, the Working Group found violations of his rights to be able to defend himself in any judicial proceedings, to liberty and security of person and to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and his capacity to defend himself, enshrined in articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, these violations were exacerbates by the death penalty faced by Mr. Al-Faraj.
In addition, he was restricted access to a lawyer during his detention and interrogations, which impaired his ability to prepare and present a defense. The Working Group found this in violation of his right to equality of arms, to adequate time to prepare a defense and to a fair hearing, protected under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr. Al-Faraj was allegedly victim of several acts of torture while in detention, to the point he was once transferred in a wheelchair to the hospital. The source explained that these acts aimed at forcing a confession out of him, which eventually succeeded. On multiple occasions, Mr. Al-Faraj claimed having been tortured, whether it be through letters to the Corwn Prince or different judicial authorities, however none of this led to any investigation of these allegations. Besides, the source stated that the verdict rendered against Mr. Al-Faraj had been mostly based on his forced confession. The Government denied all the above, specifying notably that other evidence had been used for the verdict outside of Mr. Al-Faraj's confession.
In this regard, the Working Group first recalled that Mr. Al-Faraj had been held in solitary confinement for 21 months following his arrest, and that such treatment could amount to torture under article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It then recalled that forcing a confession through ill-treatment was a violation of article 15 of the Convention against Torture. In light of the unspecific response provided by the Government, the Working Group concluded that the source had presented credible allegations that could amount to torture. Based on its jurisprudence, the Working Group noted that torture and ill-treatment were not only a grave violation of human-rights, but also amounted to a fair trial violation, as they compromise the ability to defend oneself. Thus, the Working Group referred this case to the Special Rapporteur on torture.
Lastly, the source argued that the Specialized Criminal Court and its appeal counterpart were lacking independence and impartiality as judicial organs, as they have allegedly been increasingly influenced by the executive branch and thus used for the prosecution of human rights defenders and political activists. The Government denied this allegation.
The Working Group recalled its jurisprudence, as well as the previous findings of different UN bodies, concerning the lack of independence of the Specialized Criminal Court. Specifically, the Committee against Torture found that allegations of torture made by defendants facing terrorism charges had consistently been rejected. In this light, the Working Group concluded that the trial of Mr. Al-Faraj before the Specialized Criminal Court and the Specialized Criminal Court of Appeal had been in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, considering all the above, the Working Group found that the violation of the right to a fair trial of Mr. Al-Faraj had been of such gravity as to render his deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.
DETENTION BASED ON RELIGION
The source argued that Mr. Al-Faraj was targeted for being part of the Shia minority, which the Government denied arguing he had only been arrested in relation to his terrorist crimes. The source detailed the numerous discriminations faced by the Shia religious minority, and noted that Mr. Al-Faraj's arrest, trial and death sentence had been subsequent to various protests in 2011 for Shia minority rights. The Working Group recalled several past cases in which Shia individuals had been executed, as well as the previous findings of other UN bodies concerning ethno-religious minorities in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the Working Group considered that Mr. Al-Faraj was targeted on a discriminatory basis, namely due to his religion, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Hence, the Working Group found Mr. Al-Faraj’s deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary under category V.
CONCLUSION OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Faraj was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III and V because his deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group recommended that the Government of Saudi Arabia take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Faraj without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release him immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
The Working Group also urged the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Al-Faraj and to take appropriate measures. Lastly, it requested the Government to bring its laws into conformity with the recommendations of the opinion.
Comments